X.Org Women Outreach Program Only Turns Up Two Applicants So Far

[nils_]

TL;DR Feminists are known as a loud minority, because just like any group, there are idiots that leave a bad name for everyone else.

The problem is you can either let the idiots run the show or cast them aside into obscurity where they belong. The problem is if the idiots and lunatics take over they'll be the public face, they'll be what defines your movement.

The irony is that anyone who doubts feminists perpetual victim status can be effectively silenced. These people are immensely powerful yet have enough people convinced that they are oppressed.

Also relevant to X.org, maybe they should rewrite it in a feminist programming language:
http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schl...ming-languages (This is not satire).

If this is the sort of contribution we can except I'd say no thank you

[yogi_berra]

Of course, they must be lying because they don't agree with you. Nobody who disagrees with you could possibly be telling the truth. Going to a twitter stream and seeing for yourself would be far too much

Going to a twitter stream littered with screen captures from 4chan... sure, I believe you person with a clear agenda. All these feminists getting rape and death threats. Oh, woe is them. Quick give me a paypal button they need my money!

And can you prove that it was a feminist who pulled the fire alarm? Conspiracy theories cut both ways.

The police reports prove it, it's not a conspiracy theory but that was a nice attempt to derail the criticism. Good job, give yourself a nice SJW pat on the back.

That is simply a blatant lie. Yes, you can find examples of people acting in an extreme way, or being assholes. This is true of any group on any subject. But the opponents of feminism prop them up as representatives of feminism, when in reality feminists as a whole pay not attention to them.

Bullshit you lying turd, if feminism were about equality they would have marched in Ferguson, MO.

Quite frankly, when the only outrage you show for Xorg's inability to hire women in development jobs is directed at a group of people in an unrelated forum criticizing modern feminism, I have to question if you care about the issue at all.

[Luke_Wolf]

Also relevant to X.org, maybe they should rewrite it in a feminist programming language:
http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schl...ming-languages (This is not satire).

At first I was like: This has to be satire... it has to be satire
Then I was like: No, they're serious :horror.gif:
then I read this comment

Object-oriented programming has always been a lie, in some sense: the terminology used to explain object orientation (especially in 100-level CS courses) implies a simulation of the real world, where objects have state and behavior. It then proceeds to create ChessPieces and place them on a ChessBoard, and give the ChessPieces a getRank() and a getFile() method. What this "simulation" approach to OO ignores is the nature of objects' state: a physical chess piece's rank and file isn't a property of the chess piece itself (at least, as an encapsulated object), it's a property of the chess piece's relationship to the chessboard.

and realized what kind of idiots I was dealing with, and yeah....

For anyone who doesn't have the same basis in OOP theory as I do, that comment is an example of "You're doing it wrong" not "OOP is bad", and here's why:
Consider for a moment a chess piece, you're holding it in your hand, does it currently have a position on a board? The answer is clearly no. So position is not a property of a chess piece.

Now on the other hand let us consider for a moment a chessboard, without any pieces on it at all. Are there still positions on the board? Yes, obviously, so position is a property of the chess board, and the chess board may contain chess pieces in those positions.

The more generalized form of this is that containers not the items they hold track positions. A card doesn't have a position; a deck has a card in position X. A chess piece doesn't have a position; a chess board has a chess piece at position X,Y.

What the chess piece has is a set of rules for how it may move, or attack (usually the same but for pawns it's different), a point value, and a color (black or white), and optionally a visual form assigned to it.

[MartinN]

The problem is you can either let the idiots run the show or cast them aside into obscurity where they belong. The problem is if the idiots and lunatics take over they'll be the public face, they'll be what defines your movement.

The irony is that anyone who doubts feminists perpetual victim status can be effectively silenced. These people are immensely powerful yet have enough people convinced that they are oppressed.

Also relevant to X.org, maybe they should rewrite it in a feminist programming language:
http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schl...ming-languages (This is not satire).

If this is the sort of contribution we can except I'd say no thank you

This isn't nearly as bad as http://www.feministfrequency.com/ (Anita Sarkeesian)... If there was a hater of men and what men represent, including their primal natures (the f**k it, eat it, kill it part of every man's character - the 'id' that is kept in check by super-ego and to an extent by the ego), it is this girl. I watched one episode of her "documentary" once... and by the end I felt like I had my balls in a vise....

[anda_skoa]

Quite frankly, when the only outrage you show for Xorg's inability to hire women in development jobs

Has there been any report about X.org trying to hire women for development jobs?

Maybe misunderstanding this article as such?

Cheers,
_

[anda_skoa]

This isn't nearly as bad as http://www.feministfrequency.com/ (Anita Sarkeesian)... If there was a hater of men and what men represent, including their primal natures (the f**k it, eat it, kill it part of every man's character - the 'id' that is kept in check by super-ego and to an extent by the ego), it is this girl. I watched one episode of her "documentary" once... and by the end I felt like I had my balls in a vise....

There is nothing in Anita's reports that indicates dislike for men.
If you had watched any of them you would have seen that her criticism is directed certain aspects of how women are portrayed in computer games.

Once you grow up you will also recognize that what you attribute to "primal nature" is a construct, an excuse for artifical greed for agression.
It is extremely annoying to constantly keep something in check that one was unnecessary trained to do. But it helps a lot to understand that it is not something inherent to oneself.

Cheers,
_

[TheBlackCat]

Going to a twitter stream littered with screen captures from 4chan... sure, I believe you person with a clear agenda. All these feminists getting rape and death threats. Oh, woe is them. Quick give me a paypal button they need my money!

Thanks for proving my point. Anyone who disagrees with you, by definition, must by lying. It must make life very easy for you if only people who agree with you are worth listening to.

The police reports prove it, it's not a conspiracy theory but that was a nice attempt to derail the criticism. Good job, give yourself a nice SJW pat on the back.

I am not attempting to derail the discussion, I am simply applying your own logic to your arguments.

Bullshit you lying turd, if feminism were about equality they would have marched in Ferguson, MO.

What? You do realize that there are more than one group suffering from inequality? For all the MRAs' claims that they are suffering from inequality, I don't recall them marching on Ferguson. However, all the feminists I follow most certainly also spoke out against what was happening in Ferguson.

Quite frankly, when the only outrage you show for Xorg's inability to hire women in development jobs is directed at a group of people in an unrelated forum criticizing modern feminism, I have to question if you care about the issue at all.

It was those opposed to feminism that brought feminism in general into this discussion, not me. But of course I disagree with you, therefore everything must be my fault.

[nanonyme]

I really wish this debate that's obviously going nowhere wouldn't always fill Phoronix activity feed

[MartinN]

There is nothing in Anita's reports that indicates dislike for men.
If you had watched any of them you would have seen that her criticism is directed certain aspects of how women are portrayed in computer games.

Once you grow up you will also recognize that what you attribute to "primal nature" is a construct, an excuse for artifical greed for agression.
It is extremely annoying to constantly keep something in check that one was unnecessary trained to do. But it helps a lot to understand that it is not something inherent to oneself.

Cheers,
_

You must be a female.... but I'll bite.

There's no artificial need for aggression. It's a real need.

There's no artificial need for wanting to have sex and/or intimacy with females (or males). It's a real need.

There's no artificial need for wanting to eat either. It's a real need.

At our core, whether you "like" this.... or not, call it "artificial" or not... this is who men are.

Your 'artificial' comment was also addressed in my post- it is God's morals that guide this primal nature, or else we'd be no different than animals.

Thus, men have a need to express all of these needs, one way or another. If they are not... bad things happen. Games...with stereotypes of women, bad as it may sound, are just that - games. Do these games invite a certain type of behavior that will spill over in real life - which is what Anita contends? Yes they do. And I don't deny it. The boundary between real life and games is clear, and the responsibility of those who play games with the tropes Anita is referring to lies with the person. Not the game. Not the environment.

You are correct - she does not say she dislikes men. However, she strongly implies it, or else why would she be going through the lengths that she does to "criticize certain aspects" of games? Yes, she makes valid points in her arguments - none of which will ever obviate the need for men to be men, however crude that may seem to you. I will never excuse any man behaving like that in real life toward women - it's illegal and immoral, but it doesn't mean that isn't part of our natures. And that part of our nature needs to be expressed too. For a lot of men, it's games. For others, it's probably watching porn - and I despise porn and what it does to women, real women, in real life. Games aren't real life - unless one makes them real life at which point, the game is no longer a game, and it has real consequences, legal, moral, eternal.

[profoundWHALE]

So u discreminating me by not taking me serious because of my english skills... because u dont have arguments against mine... yes of course we are the cracy sexists that discreminate others

Always the same... like I said its a religious fashism movement that dont need to argue properly because the one with the other oppinions are subhuman beeings not worth to answer too. The white male woman-enslavers are not worth to even argue with.

Basicly u proove u are a racist, because u dont take anyone serious with a perfect english.

Hey man, don't worry about it. If there's anything I learned at school, it's this: English is a stupid language. You're pretty much on par with a large majority of native English speakers.

They just wanted to hire some chicks....

/thread